User Score
7.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 65 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 46 out of 65
  2. Negative: 12 out of 65

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 7, 2011
    10
    Ok i know the criritcs bashed this title before it ever came out for not being sandbox. Ye, its not sandbox but its still a great game. the underground parts are where the destruction is limited, but many levels are not undeground. so i don't really get why the critics were complaining about the underground because it's not all underground. It could have had more destruction but THEREOk i know the criritcs bashed this title before it ever came out for not being sandbox. Ye, its not sandbox but its still a great game. the underground parts are where the destruction is limited, but many levels are not undeground. so i don't really get why the critics were complaining about the underground because it's not all underground. It could have had more destruction but THERE CAN ALWAYS BE MORE DESTRUCTION!!.

    Anyway i really found that the vehicle s made up for the lack of free roam world to destroy. some of the vehicles are epic!!! Also the gravity gun smashes stuff into other stuff. need i say more? that is awesome!!!!!!!! then if i destroy an object that i need i can use the nano forge to repair it. this is good because i want to destroy everything.

    The multiplayer is my favorite part though: no story, just destroy stuff and kill stuff. ruin mode is also good and shows off the destruction aspect of the game. all you do is destroy stuff while being timed.
    Expand
  2. Jun 8, 2011
    10
    This game is a great buy! Even though it lacks the open world experience that Guerrilla has, it doesn't lack in gameplay. This game is focused on a good story line rather than destroy this building, destroy this building, save some colonists, kill a squad of enemies, etc, like Guerrilla was.

    The Multiplayer is absolutely great, there is nothing like blasting some Aliens with Mr. Toots.
  3. Jun 10, 2011
    2
    Warning beforehand, spoilers.

    Before I start on on the reason for the low rating, I'd just like to say, the gameplay, for what it is, is good. The weapons are fun to play with, the enemies are fairly fun to go after, and the vehicle stages are awesome. Gameplay is good, the game as a whole, though, is not. That said, on to the rest of the review. First, the campaign is only about 7-10
    Warning beforehand, spoilers.

    Before I start on on the reason for the low rating, I'd just like to say, the gameplay, for what it is, is good. The weapons are fun to play with, the enemies are fairly fun to go after, and the vehicle stages are awesome. Gameplay is good, the game as a whole, though, is not.

    That said, on to the rest of the review. First, the campaign is only about 7-10 hours long, depending on how you play. Publishers should have learned by now that that is not acceptable for a game you're charging $50-60 for.

    This would be forgivable, if there was a robust multiplayer. however, their only multiplayer is a hoard mode. For a sequel to a game whose competitive multiplayer was almost universally loved, totally leaving that out is unforgivable. Note to developers: hoard mode was great...in Gears 2 when we first saw it. Alongside a good competitive multiplayer experience. And before we saw it in pretty much every game we've seen come out since. It does not now, and really would never have, substituted for a short campaign and lack of other multiplayer options.

    Finally, the plot. Most of the game, it's fine, but the last part of the game completely ruins it. For anyone who hasn't played it yet, in the final mission you go repair the terraformer. The device that got blown up in the first level of the game, sending all people on Mars underground to survive, essentially ruining everything that had been built on the planet. You succeed, of course...alone...in about 45 minutes...while being assaulted by hoards of aliens. So...you're telling me an entire planet of people decided to live like refugees instead of sending a team to do what seems like a very simple repair?

    Then there's the reason you're repairing the terraformer. It's not so the people of Mars can get back to building their lives. It's because apparently the aliens can't survive in an earth-like environment. You know, the kind humans need to live. And that you've been fighting aliens (including the queen) in for this entire game. Within moments of turning on the terraformer, they start dropping like flies. So...um...why could they attack you at all?

    To summarize, a short campaign, poor multiplayer options, and a plotline that Uwe Boll would turn down make this game not worth the price. A pity, as the previous Red Faction games have been amazing.
    Expand
  4. Jun 20, 2011
    10
    This game is amazingly fun. It may not have the longest campaign but it is very fun. The enviroments re varied enough that they don't get boribg and infestation mode just adds to the already amazing campaign. Its a must buy for everyone!
  5. JET
    Jun 20, 2011
    10
    This game is amazing! The campaign, whilst not being the longest, is varied and fun enough to never get boring. Then there is the infestation mode which just adds to the games life. This is a definite must buy for any fans of 3rd person shooters.
  6. Aug 23, 2011
    7
    Having 'Armageddon' as the sub title, says everything about this game. You will have fun blowing everything to hell, but it's also a little unoriginal, especially when you consider the last game's open world geurilla warfare gameplay.
  7. Apr 5, 2012
    6
    I picked up Red Faction for $10 and thought at that price, I couldn't go wrong. Boy was I wrong! If you like fighting alien bugs over and over again inside confined spaces, then you will love this game. If not, then you will probably get annoyed at the repetitiveness and barely be able to tolerate playing through to the end thanks to the sometimes enjoyable destruction and magnet gun mechanics.
  8. Jun 11, 2011
    6
    This game is a most unfortunate example of regression from a predecessor of exemplary quality.

    Can we start off by saying that RF:Guerilla continues to be one of my favorite playing experiences in the same league as Red Dead and others. Here was a rare game with some sense of impact on it's world where buildings destroyed would remain collapsed. The wide variety of ways you could use the
    This game is a most unfortunate example of regression from a predecessor of exemplary quality.

    Can we start off by saying that RF:Guerilla continues to be one of my favorite playing experiences in the same league as Red Dead and others. Here was a rare game with some sense of impact on it's world where buildings destroyed would remain collapsed. The wide variety of ways you could use the tools on hand to achieve your goals. Whereas I was hoping for a refinement of the Martian sandbox game we instead have a very technically solid game that I found lost what made Guerilla so gravitational. Choice is replaced with direction. An emergent world is replaced by repetitive set pieces.

    It feels like development was aimed at being more like everyone else (CoD, Dead Space and Gears of War come to mind) instead of staying at it's unique spot in the sandbox genre. I mean what other game let's you strap explosives to your vehicle, drive it INTO a big building before leaping out and detonating it? Plus a myriad of other ways to accomplish the objective on top of that.

    Still this game has it's good side as well. Your amoury is varied, imaginative and effective. Probably the best assortment of guns in one game that I can think of. I feel the mediocrity of this gaming experience will keep the gravity gun from getting it's due, but it is the most well realized and imaginative weapon in years. The destruction is done very well, though in such confined spaces and unrevisited levels, it lacks the significance of RFG. To expound on that, in RFG I would activly try to maintain some structures as routes of escape or because it was some settlers home. In this game I know I'll never be back so I just lay waste and move on with a sense of detachment.

    So may I suggest a return to an open world sandbox game of destruction for the next Red Faction? Volition looks to be doing such a good job on Saints Row the Third (had to watch IGN's E3 live demo ~ 6 times) - you know you have sandbox games in your repertoire!

    Signed - a mildly disappointed fan
    Expand
  9. Jun 11, 2011
    7
    I'm very sorry for not noticing this before - I play this on the PC and meant to post to that page. I have not played the 360 version and would probably think differently about this game because the DX11 graphics on the PC are SUPERB. That changes a lot for me. So sorry for the double review, just wanted to clarify. I dropped this review down 2 notches because the difference in PC vs 360.I'm very sorry for not noticing this before - I play this on the PC and meant to post to that page. I have not played the 360 version and would probably think differently about this game because the DX11 graphics on the PC are SUPERB. That changes a lot for me. So sorry for the double review, just wanted to clarify. I dropped this review down 2 notches because the difference in PC vs 360. I'm not trying to console bash here, it just is what it is. This game takes advantage of advanced technology for advanced PC's and that changes the experience. Expand
  10. Jun 16, 2011
    8
    First things first, the critics average and the users average should be ignored. It seems like a lot of opinion 'band wagon' jumping has occurred with this title, and I genuinely believe its unfair. Ok so the game is far less sandbox than its predecessor Guerilla, but this really shouldn't put people off. It does linear very well (think of it as putting Gears, Resi 5, Dead Space, and RedFirst things first, the critics average and the users average should be ignored. It seems like a lot of opinion 'band wagon' jumping has occurred with this title, and I genuinely believe its unfair. Ok so the game is far less sandbox than its predecessor Guerilla, but this really shouldn't put people off. It does linear very well (think of it as putting Gears, Resi 5, Dead Space, and Red Faction in a blender) and never becomes a bore or feels like your plodding along. I actually prefer this to Guerilla, because I am a bit of a 'run n gun' boy, and having removed 'certain' sandboxy elements actually makes it feel a bit more focused. So to people unfairly bashing Armageddon it is still a thoroughly enjoyable and identify-able Red Faction experience that really should be played Expand
  11. Apr 16, 2012
    2
    Let's forget about Red Faction: Guerrilla - It was a top game and very enjoyable throughout, however I'll judge Red Faction: Armageddon as a stand alone game. Right, RF:A as a stand alone game is **** It really, really is a poor example of a shooter and offers the player absolutely nothing which hasn't been done before and done a lot better. Straight from the outset the game comes acrossLet's forget about Red Faction: Guerrilla - It was a top game and very enjoyable throughout, however I'll judge Red Faction: Armageddon as a stand alone game. Right, RF:A as a stand alone game is **** It really, really is a poor example of a shooter and offers the player absolutely nothing which hasn't been done before and done a lot better. Straight from the outset the game comes across as a dull Gears of War rip off which hasn't the refined cover mechanics, nor the polish to draw you in. Crammed in there are certain destruction elements from RF:G, but they are poorly implemented and this time around the game is more about repairing things with this laughably bad "make everything better" device rather than destroying them. And when the second level hits and it suddenly becomes apparent that you can get through the levels simply by running through them, and without shooting or caring what is in the way. Combine that with awkwardly narrow areas in which you fight, and an enemy setup which punishes the player for taking time to engage the enemies, and this whole experience just grinds to a halt very early on. I only purchased this for £5, but i still feel robbed. I cannot see any reason to play this and I'd strongly recommend everyone steers well clear of it. Expand
  12. Nov 21, 2011
    7
    This game is a rental it was fun different and the magnet gun is all you need lol. I felt like I was in starship troopers BUGSSSSSSSSSSSS! I was expecting more from Mr. toots lol but it was still funny. Find it for 15 bucks pick it up its always fun to shoot a black hole at buildings and see them explode lol. Armageddon is not much on story or game play its just an average game with fun weapons.
  13. Dec 20, 2011
    4
    Look, I didn't play this game for long, so I cant comment on the whole experience, but from what I played, wow what a stinker! I picked it up during the drought in early to mid 2011 was seriously unimpressed with the graphics and being ushered down a narrow corridor. There are vastly superior shooters available, there is a reason the franchise has been discontinued. (the game sucks)
  14. Mar 2, 2014
    7
    Basically if they had the gameplay and made it open world exactly like guerrilla but also adding aliens, it would be an easy nine.

    Pro: Geo Mod 2. Weapons, especially that magnet gun. Repair function. Good story nothing special but an improvement on G. Good voice acting. Fun. Atmospheric. Cons: Bad soundtrack. 6 hrs long? Linear. It took underground where fewer buildings
    Basically if they had the gameplay and made it open world exactly like guerrilla but also adding aliens, it would be an easy nine.

    Pro:
    Geo Mod 2.
    Weapons, especially that magnet gun.
    Repair function.
    Good story nothing special but an improvement on G.
    Good voice acting.
    Fun.
    Atmospheric.

    Cons:
    Bad soundtrack.
    6 hrs long?
    Linear.
    It took underground where fewer buildings are, so what's the point of having a destruction built engine?
    Boring the second time.
    Expand
  15. Aug 3, 2011
    9
    There are a lot of people slamming this game because of its linear game play and primarily story based missions,but I've got to say that this was my biggest surprise of the year. Not only was it memorable and absolutely gorgeous to play, but it also had a tonne of charm mixed in that so many modern games seem to be lacking these days.
    After the disapointing affair that was Guerrilla, it
    There are a lot of people slamming this game because of its linear game play and primarily story based missions,but I've got to say that this was my biggest surprise of the year. Not only was it memorable and absolutely gorgeous to play, but it also had a tonne of charm mixed in that so many modern games seem to be lacking these days.
    After the disapointing affair that was Guerrilla, it was a refreshing and bold move that I feel has paid off. Though more effort could have been given to the alien encounters, I feel that Armageddon is an almost flawless experience.
    Expand
  16. Jun 21, 2011
    9
    I've been playing the Red Faction games since the first one came out (I liked it better on PC than PS2) and I have to say that I think this is the best one since that first title. I didn't care much for Guerilla, I thought the open-world was an excuse to compete with superior sandbox titles like GTA and Saints Row (same company, unnecessary to have 2 of the same type of game), but iI've been playing the Red Faction games since the first one came out (I liked it better on PC than PS2) and I have to say that I think this is the best one since that first title. I didn't care much for Guerilla, I thought the open-world was an excuse to compete with superior sandbox titles like GTA and Saints Row (same company, unnecessary to have 2 of the same type of game), but i definitely liked the evolution of the weaponry and the environment destruction tech. Armageddon keeps the graphical/technical feel of Guerilla, but streamlines it into an experience more akin to the first game. Mars just didn't have enough to explore to make it feel worth my time to venture out, but as soon as I finished my first campaign of Armageddon, I started a new one with all of my stuff intact from the last playthrough (similar to Dead Space 2 - and you can actually change difficulty!). I will admit that the environment leaves a bit to be desired, and the graphics are solid but uninspiring. Otherwise, single-player alone was enough to warrant a purchase for me, and multiplayer is well-designed if a little on the lightweight side (4 player co-op only, no versus). If you're a dedicated fan of the Red Faction series, this title should not feel out of place in your collection. Expand
  17. Jun 16, 2011
    3
    The last red faction was a fun GTA meets Total Recall with some fun destruction physics but this is a mediocre monster masher and dull as hell. I have no idea why they even called it red faction.

    Here is one thing that makes the game stupid as hell and itâ
  18. Jun 8, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game has pretty good graphics, good but repetitive gameplay, very similar levels, and an amazing physics engine. The largest reason to buy the game is its destruction engine. The largest turn off is its plot. The plot starts strong, but near the end, Kara, the one character who makes the plot bearable, dies, and at the worst possible time too. Darius is a very simple, boring, and dumb character, he doesnt seem to mind when his friends die, or when he unleashes the bugs on people. Kara is an interesting character, but she is hardly there for most of the game. Frank is pretty much the stereotypical soldier, think carbon copy of Johnson from Halo. The ending doesnt even resolve most of the problems and the villains dont seem to think about plans. IE how did Hale think a bunch of homicidal bugs were going to somehow propel him to the seat of planetary ruler? Also, the audio logs tell a much more interesting story, but you cant follow up on that one. You get stuck with the simple bug hunt plot. All in all, this game will probably entertain you for a couple of hours, then you will regret the purchase.

    PS this game doesnt have an open world setting or emphasis on vehicles like Guerrilla did. Most people, including me, think this is a HUGE step backwards for the series, as Guerrilla had these, and a better, if simpler, plot.
    Expand
  19. Jun 13, 2011
    9
    I have enjoyed this game immensely!! Love the third person action then switching over to 1st person for Vehicle missions. Great guns, great perks, lots of destruction.........Just simple uncomplicated brainless fun. Once in a while it is refreshing to play a shooter of this Sci-Fi Genre. Cartoonish Graphics during game play but but well done with vibriant colors. Movement isI have enjoyed this game immensely!! Love the third person action then switching over to 1st person for Vehicle missions. Great guns, great perks, lots of destruction.........Just simple uncomplicated brainless fun. Once in a while it is refreshing to play a shooter of this Sci-Fi Genre. Cartoonish Graphics during game play but but well done with vibriant colors. Movement is excellent, very similar to Gears in that aspect. So if you are looking for a game that is alot of fun without the complexity of a military shooter, then this game will definelty be worth the $60.00 dollars of 8 to 10 hours of playing time. Damn most of us spend that on a Dinner for two. Expand
  20. Jun 17, 2011
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I felt compelled to post a review as a reaction to the negative user reviews people have posted in regards to this title. Let me start by saying that I have spent around 25 hours playing this game so far, and have enjoyed every moment. Rather than rehash the features of the game I'll address the most common complaints people have raised in regards to it and explain why I see them as being flat out WRONG.

    Lack of sandbox: Yes. Other notable games that lack sandbox modes include Call of Duty (all entries), all Halo titles (all right, ODST had a pseudo-open structure), Dead Space 1 and 2... shall I go on? The point is that Armageddon has more in common with any of these games than with the previous installment of Red Faction - the developers have chosen to present a linear campaign rather than Guerrilla's open world, and the only common elements between the two titles are the setting and the destruction game mechanics. This should only be a concern if the title was being presented as having the same gameplay as Guerrilla, which it is not. Story length: Given the above discussion of the game's structure, compare the campaign length of Guerrilla to any of the titles I've listed above. It is comparable to the majority of shooters. Complaints about this current reality of game design should be levelled against the market as a whole - to single out this title is ridiculous. It should therefore be judged against its genre competitors, where it stands favourably, especially given the New Game Plus feature and in-game unlockable cheats that the game provides as incentive to dip back into the campaign. I have played it 2.5 times through so far, and each time tackled each mission differently, largely due to the sheer scale of carnage I was able to hand out on the repeated runs.

    Lack of versus multiplayer: Personally, I have found the multi-player versus modes tacked onto a lot of games of this nature to be at best a waste of time, and find myself wondering how much of the developer's time and resources was invested into the lacklustre versus play in, for example, Dead Space 2, when that effort could have been put into making the single player campaign even better. That said, the developers of Armageddon have provided a robust Horde-mode clone in Infestation, and the hours that I've put into it so far with some Xbox Live friends have been some pretty riotous fun, largely due to the destruction mechanics. It won't be something to keep going back and back to, but then, few multiplayer games manage to capture that magic, and some extra hours of entertainment add value to the overall game package.

    And now for the complaint I find most mind-bendingly stupid: "The game ending is a plot hole because they could have fixed the terraformer earlier."

    SPOILERS: No. It's not a plot hole, morons. Really. There are characters IN THE GAME who address this very concern. There is dialogue regarding the terraformer being easy to fix. There are hints dropped that the government is deliberately keeping people underground by choosing not to fix the terraformer. And there are collectible audio logs throughout the game that reveal the story behind the story. The story goes that scientists with the Ultor corporation explored underground, and found the buried creatures in stasis in sealed tunnels. Experiments on these creatures' DNA was the source of the Martian Plague from the earlier games. This discovery was kept classified in the secure Ultor files.

    Adam Hale hacked into these files and extracted data about the alien creatures. He realised that control of the aliens was the key to his becoming the ruler of Mars. However, the creatures would remain in stasis while the Martian atmosphere was habitable for humans, so he used his cultists to destroy the terraformer, causing the aliens to awaken in their sealed tunnels.

    The Martian government knew about the creatures all along, and elected to leave the terraformer disabled so that they could perform potentially valuable scientific research on them. However, Hale exploited this (and possibly influenced this policy, but the game does not specify this) by arranging for the awakened aliens to escape from their captivity (using Darius Mason to do this as a gesture of revenge upon the Mason family) and spread across Mars. Hale's knowledge of the creatures and ability to control them meant that he would be the ultimate power on the planet.

    This information is in the game. Some of the detail needs to be dug for, slightly. But saying that the plot doesn't hang together is patently false.

    Hope this was informative for some readers. IMO the game is highly worth playing and I'd recommend it to anyone who loves blowing stuff up in epic ways.
    Expand
  21. May 10, 2013
    3
    This game was a far cry from Red Faction: Guerrilla. It was waaaay too linear and just took Red Faction back to the days of a start-to-finish shooter. SNORE.
  22. Jul 23, 2011
    10
    Maybe it's narrowed down to a more linear level progression, story driven kind of game, instead of it's predecessor's successfully huge, GTA like open-world sandbox, but Red Faction: Armageddon is truly one of the most beautiful and mind blowing games that Geo-Mod 2.5 could ever produce, it truly pushed the destructible environment element to it's limits. The plot of the game sticks to theMaybe it's narrowed down to a more linear level progression, story driven kind of game, instead of it's predecessor's successfully huge, GTA like open-world sandbox, but Red Faction: Armageddon is truly one of the most beautiful and mind blowing games that Geo-Mod 2.5 could ever produce, it truly pushed the destructible environment element to it's limits. The plot of the game sticks to the Red Faction franchise origins, even though the addition of alien specimen encounters are core to it's success or failure. The controls are pretty much similar to Guerrilla but with a more enhanced scheme. you'll encouter many Martians through your guns blazin' adventure, but what really makes it enjoyable is how many you'll end up killing in a gameplay through hell and out of it, and with the satisfying set of tools and weaponry, the eye-popping environment destruction and intensity through it all just makes it an addictive master piece you'll regret not experiencing. Overall, it's disappointing to most fans of the series, yet it's an amazing spin off towards the potential better development of the franchise. Expand
  23. Aug 8, 2013
    4
    I first played RFG back in 2009 on the Ps3, I got the Xbox 360 the following year, heard about this game at the end of July in 2010, looking at the announcement and E3 trailer, I was so excited, never before have I hyped up a game so much and waited so desperately. January 2011: the game was delayed to June, I was so frustrated and annoyed. Such a desperate wait, I got the game soon asI first played RFG back in 2009 on the Ps3, I got the Xbox 360 the following year, heard about this game at the end of July in 2010, looking at the announcement and E3 trailer, I was so excited, never before have I hyped up a game so much and waited so desperately. January 2011: the game was delayed to June, I was so frustrated and annoyed. Such a desperate wait, I got the game soon as possible, right on launch day and what do I find? a massive disappointment: The story is about Red Faction at war against the Cultists led by Nathan Hale, who blows up the terraformer and everybody is forced underground because the world has ended. Later on, aliens made from Capek in the first game are unleashed and goes killing everybody. You don't go through proper underground civilization as the habitats are just mostly plain shelters. where do they get food from and power? The Bastion and the black market, what else is there? is that the ONLY habitats and remnants of humans underground? The story needs a lot more work on and needs to explain a lot more. The campaign is linear, it is short, the buildings are mostly bridges, walls and platforms, and weak story telling. A lack of level select option doesn't help either. As for the "go-beneath thing" they hyped up so much, civilization is not even deep underground, you go through a wide area of shelter and as I look up, there's sunlight coming through and about that "molten core of Mars" thing they mentioned. Nope, those lava caves are NOT the center of the planet, it's just a volcano on the surface inhabited by marauders. This game is nothing like what the trailers make it look like. It's not that being a linear was a terrible thing, the problem is, it simply undermined RFG and why we liked that game so much, and going underground was totally the wrong to go back to linear, I wanted big open world very deep underground, objectives and missions, proper towns and civilizations, with you and tons of other Red Faction soldiers fighting against creepy bugs attacking and killing everyone while defending and doing all kinds of other objectives and missions, and I'm absolutely sure the rest of the small Red Faction community want that. And just to let you know, there is no multiplayer (Red Faction vs Cultists), that's right, NO MULTIPLAYER. RFG was a very unique game and has the best multiplayer I've ever played and it's my favorite, and a lot of my history on Xbox is dedicated towards it especially as it comes to halfway 2011, now I can only get games like several times a month and that's it, it's really late at night and only goes on for an average 2-4 games. The biggest reason the community hated this game is because of the lack of multiplayer. The multiplayer in this game also could of featured the aliens in it that would attack both the teams of Red Faction and Cultists. The Infestation Mode is plane boring, and what annoys me is the defend maps, you have to defend buildings which you will want to destroy and have fun with while fighting and bring it down upon creepy crawlies, such a contradiction towards what Red Faction is all about, how could the developers think that is fun? As for Ruin Mode, they put no effort into it, the maps are recycled from the campaign, only 5 maps, and 3 of them barely any buildings, the other 2 has buildings, but they come down too easily, can't disable barrels and the building designs on the 2 maps is RFG scrap that should NOT of been recycled and re-used, of course you do see them in the campaign as well. Not worth paying 400 MS Points for that and this game should not cost full price, if you don't buy the game brand new, you will have to pay 400 MS Points for that, not much of a loss, but Ruin Mode will leave you feeling like your money is wasted. The good things are the magnet gun, the setup and idea, and going underground is a perfect idea for Red Faction, unfortunately, they poorly handled it. And because of the bad sales, THQ cancelled Red Faction 5; future Red Faction games, one of the biggest disappointments in recent years. And hey, a developer I know nothing about called Nordic Games has purchased the IP for Red Faction now, I don't know who they are, but when they start work on future Red Faction games, they have parameters to stick to: we want sandbox, great story telling, good multiplayer, science fiction especially unrealistic futuristic weapons and atleast a good 3 or 4 years of full focus and production (depending on how good the developers are), as destruction is hard to do, especially with realistic graphics. But don't expect another game to come for another 3-5 years. (Originally posted on 10th May 2013) Expand
  24. Dec 9, 2014
    5
    I was a big fan of the original Red Faction when it was released in 2001. Unfortunately, the subsequent releases have gotten worse and worse. This title is no exception. Entertaining for the first hour or two, you quickly find yourself bored of smashing buildings in the environment. The story doesn't help things, I found myself not even paying attention to it. The mechanics are done well.I was a big fan of the original Red Faction when it was released in 2001. Unfortunately, the subsequent releases have gotten worse and worse. This title is no exception. Entertaining for the first hour or two, you quickly find yourself bored of smashing buildings in the environment. The story doesn't help things, I found myself not even paying attention to it. The mechanics are done well. Though there is nothing specific to hate about this game there is also nothing to get excited about. Expand
  25. Apr 30, 2013
    5
    Red Faction guerrilla was such a fantastic game but with this game it seemed like they took a backwards step. Ok, so their are some cool features within this game such as the weapons and the storyline. The Story happens after red faction: guerrilla and takes around 8 hours to get through which is a good amount of hours but after the story their is not much to do apart from infection modeRed Faction guerrilla was such a fantastic game but with this game it seemed like they took a backwards step. Ok, so their are some cool features within this game such as the weapons and the storyline. The Story happens after red faction: guerrilla and takes around 8 hours to get through which is a good amount of hours but after the story their is not much to do apart from infection mode which just seems bland and boring. They have not implemented a competitive multilayer within this game, as I put so many hours into the competitive on guerrilla I thought that this would of been a must with in this game. It would of been nice to see a bit more destruction available but being in caves most of the game seem almost claustrophobic. I feel the next red faction needs to be like the previous game and not trying to be some big blockbuster that this one was trying to be, this would revamp the series and the destrucability of guerrilla was the highlight of the game. I would recommend this game to people that don't use Xbox live and enjoy solo campaigns. Expand
Metascore
71

Mixed or average reviews - based on 74 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 74
  2. Negative: 2 out of 74
  1. Sep 15, 2011
    60
    Although Red Faction: Armageddon offers one of the coolest weapons of the year, a good weapon mechanic and destructible environments, the game falls flat with an uninspiring single-player campaign and a short-lived multiplayer segment.
  2. Aug 8, 2011
    60
    It's a shame that these excellent physics and novel weapons haven't been given a better showcase. [Issue#112, p.112]
  3. Jul 25, 2011
    60
    Does nothing for the franchise whatsoever. [Issue#74, p.84]